Miscellaneous Matters From "Burnett's Budget'

(We continue with material from the March 15, 1905, issue of "Burnett's Budget", published in Dallas, Texas, by Brother T. R. Burnett.)

1. The Gospel Guide, Bro. Warlick's new paper, has just been issued, and the Budget has received a copy.

It is a neat little journal, smaller than his other paper, and only half the price. But it is large enough for all practical purposes, and for all the patronage it will receive. The trouble with the former paper, it was too dignified and stately and hefty for its support. The present journal is of cheaper style and make-up, and will be less expensive. Four good men have been attached to the staff as associate editors; none of them experienced writers, but all of them men of respectable talent. Bro. W. is in the main sound in the faith, and the new paper will be a valuable accession to the journalism of Texas.

2. "So long as faith is without works it is dead — it is dead till it works." — Chas. R. Nichol in Gospel Guide.

That is a mistake, a very popular mistake — that faith has to work to give itself life. A dead faith never works. How can a dead faith work? A live faith works, and that is how we know it is alive, because it works. But it does not work in order to bring itself to life. Life precedes work. "Faith without works is dead." Certainly it is.

3. "Is it right for me to teach the Baptists of today that they are safe when depending upon John's baptism adulterated as they have it? Is John's now, without its true design, better and safer than it was in Paul's day with its scriptural design?" — Joe S. Warlick in Leader-Way.

The Baptists of today do not administer John's baptism, but baptize "into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." Those whom Paul re-baptized had not been baptized with this formula, for they had not "so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost." There are no Baptists of today in that condition. The case of the twelve at Ephesus should not be quoted to justify re-baptism in Texas, unless there are persons here who have not been baptized with the apostolic formula. If we thought Baptists unsafe, we would not shake them.

4. The Budget received a call a few days ago from Bro. Fred Rowe, publisher and proprietor of the Leader-Way, accompanied by Dr. A. P. Davis of Dallas. Bro. Rowe is tall and slender like his father, of pleasant address, his thirty-eight years of age, and has been reared in the journalistic business. He preached at Pearl and Bryan church last Lord's day. Bro. R. publishes one of the best papers in the reformation.

5. If a knowledge that baptism is for remission of sins is essential to its validity, then every preacher who administers baptism should thoroughly catechize his candidate on that point before administering baptism. To fail to do it, is to jeopardize the salvation of his convert, and jeopardize his own salvation. As there is no scriptural authority for such catechism, and no preacher of the present day uses such catechism, we take it that nobody actually believes the doctrine.

6. "Bros. Lipscomb and Harding continually call attention to the fact that men should be baptized 'to obey God,' just as though God had made this a specific design of baptism. Where in all the realm of David Lipscomb's reading did he read that baptism is to obey God?" — Firm Foundation.

Well now, that beats the band! Is not baptism a part of the obedience of the gospel? Does not Paul teach in Thessalonians that we must obey the gospel? If we are baptized, do we not obey the gospel? Are we not commanded to be baptized? What "realm" have you been reading in?

7. "Whoever opposes the doctrine of total depravity belittles Christ." — Bandy in American Baptist Flag.

We suppose Bandy thinks the bigger the sinner the bigger the salvation, and he wants to give the Lord a big job. Well, he might set him to work to save the devil. The devil is totally depraved. But the Lord would perhaps tell him the devil is not worth saving. A totally depraved sinner is like a rotten potato -- there is nothing in it to save.

8. "Editor Budget: One A. D. Rogers says in the Courier that a re-baptism church in Hill county, Texas, led by a preacher named Bedichek, withdrew fellowship from a brother who merely said that if he lived near a church that used an organ he would worship with it. Did the church do wrong in withdrawal?" — Inquirer.

If Bro. Rogers made a correct report of the affair, we think the church did wrong. This is a country of free speech. A man should not be disfellowshipped for expressing his opinion. If he went so far as to cause division in the church where he lived, by his speech, it was a more serious matter. It is a question that has caused much thought, when a person lives where there is a church that uses an organ, and there is no other with which to worship, whether he should meet with the organ-playing church or have no worship at all. A great many good people choose the less of two evils, so they think, and attend where the instrument is used. A man should not be condemned for expressing his opinion about the matter.

(This ends our quotations form the March 15, 1905, "Burnett's Budget" We now use material appearing in the issue of September 15, 1907.)

1. Bro. Whiteside, the new editor of the Christian Monitor, stands with Lipscomb and Burnett on the question of shaking Baptists. What will Warlick and Phillips and Chism and Richardson and McCarty and Young and Ledlow do? Will they shake Whiteside, and go back to the Firm Foundation? If so, what will they do with Prof. Clark and the anti-Sunday-school people?

2. The editor of Word and Work, a Sadducee paper printed at Abilene, Texas, criticizes the Budget's statement that the covenant made with Abraham in the 12th chapter of Genesis "had no land in it, and no circumcision," and quotes Gen 12:1 as follows: "Now the Lord said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee." And he wants to know if that does not look like land? Yes, God told Abram to go "unto a land," but said nothing about giving it to him. Suppose we should tell the editor of Word and Work to go unto the city of Austin, would he understand that we had given him the city of Austin? Pshaw! Somebody bore that editor's head for the simples!

3. ARKANSAS BAPTIST ON THE DEBATE. "Bro. Autry is a lovable man from every standpoint, and then he is a Baptist. We had never heard him in debate before, nor had we ever heard Warlick. If God has specially endowed us in any way, it is with the ability to read a man's face. We also feel partially competent to judge a man's ability. If we now speak plainly and frankly out of our heart about these two men, they will excuse us, if we get close to them, for we speak solely for the benefit of our readers who have heard neither. In point of ability, Autry is not Warlick's equal. As a debater, Autry is far behind Warlick. He is not the orator that Warlick is, nor can he make as clear argument. Warlick is what might be called an experienced and artful debater. He knows just what to say, and how to say it, in order to carry an unwary crowd. There is not the least element of fairness in anything he says or does before the audience. He has no respect for the opinion of his opponent, and he scruples not to attribute insincerity to him. More than once did he charge Autry with knowing he was teaching a lie and not the truth. He will take any kind of advantage, and he scruples not at any kind of a trick. Egotism shows in every movement, word, gesture and expression, and yet he is so well guarded that the unsophisticated would never notice it. He is not what might be called an educated man, and yet has debated so much over the same ground that he can almost fool the tutored. By no means could he be called a scholar. He is a man with only one idea. It never appeared to him that other folks might have notions about things different from himself. He acts and talks like everybody except himself and the Campbellites are fakes and hypocrites. If a man's face is any index to his soul, Joe S. Warlick is not honest. There is everything in his face to indicate hypocrisy. If he is not a moral pervert, he should sue his face for slander. It is our candid opinion, after listening to him for nearly three days, that he could write psalms with one hand and steal with the other, at the same time lie with his mouth without any remorse of conscience. He is not at all on the plane of any of our decent men, hence should get but little attention. We never had but one debater that could afford to follow Warlick in his mud-and gush, and he is W. M. Hicks. 'If Hicks is guilty of every crime ever charged against him, there is yet as much manhood in him as Warlick's face and manners indicate he ever had." — Arkansas Baptist.

That editor must have received a bad shot in the neck! It was evident to all that Autry got a good dressing, but we did not know the editor was so badly damaged! The Baptists of Arkansas should get Hicks out of jail at once, if he is their only defended. The good cause is suffering.

The editors of Gospel Guardian deliberately neglected to apply copyright to the periodical, relegating it to public domain. Out of respect for their principles and the value of their writings, we likewise release all rights to all material on this page, releasing it to the public domain.